Oliphant v. Schlie’s Empirical Analysis
544 F.2d 1007 · 1976
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), Nevadas v. Floyd Hicks (2001)
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 1160 · 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 203 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968) · 25 U.S.C. § 1321 · 25 U.S.C. § 1323
Relies on Patterson v. United States · Williams v. Lee · McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona · United States v. Kagama · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Oliphant argues that the Governor’s proclamation was invalid under the state law and can have no effect. In our opinion, the question is one of federal law, not state law. The acceptance of the retrocession by the Secretary, pursuant to the authorization of the President, made the retrocession effective, whether or not the Governor’s proclamation was valid under Wash ington law. In this respect, we agree with the views of Judge Denney in United States v. Brown, D.Neb., 1971, 334 F. Supp. 536 , 540-41: “The federal government, having plenary power over the Indians, had the power to prescribe any method or event it desired to trigger its own re-assumption of control over Indian affairs within a state: In fact, the triggering event could have been devoid of any mention of state action at all. “The plenary power of the federal government over Indian affairs, the inescapable difficulty of requiring the Secretary to delve into the internal workings of the state government, and the reliance of the federal government upon what appeared to have been a valid state action, are all factors to be considered and lead the Court to the conclusion that the federal interpretation of the effectiveness of state action triggering the re-assertion of federal jurisdiction is and was controlling. “Retrocession” does not imply any particular procedure or action on the part of the states involved and the need for finality and importance of the various competing interests here dictates that the state ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is important to focus on the precise issue in this case [Oliphant], We are not considering whether Indian tribes may pass reservation ordinances, having the force of law, governing the conduct of the tribe's members; they may.... Nor are we determining whether Indians have the right to exclude from the reservation nonmembers they deem undesirable; they have. . . . Nor is there any question of potential lawbreakers going unpunished, a point given special emphasis by the majority, for we have held that tribal authorities have the power to apprehend violators of state and federal law and to deliver the offenders to the appropriate authority. Oriz [sic]-Barraza v. United States, 512 F.2d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The concept of sovereignty applicable to Indian tribes need not include the power to prosecute nonmembers. This power, unlike the ability to maintain law and order on the reservation and to exclude nondesireable nonmembers, is not essential to the tribe's identity or its self-governing status”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.